Everything that is wrong with WvW in 2023

[Riba.3271]

So it is spring again, and time for my annual thread to list what is most surely wrong with WvW. I am saddened to inform I have already made many of these over past couple years and only 1 or 2 points have been partly adressed, so the list is pretty much the same but at least my vocabulary and ability to simplify words is improving. Lets begin, we will go in order of what systems I think have most negative effect to least negative.

 

Server linking system

Now I know that most people only think that if their closest friend are with them, it is all that matters, but they do not realise how widespread is the damage this system causes to stability and player mentality within WvW. Alliances are coming? Well, as I see it they have all the negatives of linking systems but even worse.

 The flaws of this system are following:

1. It limits server population by having 2 servers together: noninvested and invested players can never fit together. Invested WvW players will always deviate away from noninvested players, else they cannot fit their guilds in. Go to a PvE server as a good player? You will feel completely alone, you can count acceptable players there with 1 hand.
2. Server timezones are unstable: Frankly you have no clue when to log in since amount of guilds, commanders and players varies on all sides. Server that might be good to fight this week, can have nothing next month. Groups you love to play with a month or two, will struggle either with finding fights or numbers the next few. And this isn't caused by them doing anything wrong, just systems within the game. Having no idea when there tends to be commanders, guilds, followers or enemies, is just fast road to quitting the game all together
3. Long-term progression and communication: Each server linking resets most progression you have made as a group: Dealt with trolls and destructive behaviour on server? Here! Have new ones! Trained players and found good enemies to fight? Nah, have a new patch for both sides to ensure good fights turn into one push fights! Improved percentage of players willing to communicate or join voice communications? Start all over. While it is possible for you to keep putting unreasonable amounts of efforts to keep adequate player level, your enemy servers won't. Progression in quality and return of effort is absolutely mandatory for WvW to thrive.
4. Average quality of content is worse: Well, average server quality can simply be calculated by summing player number on a each linking divided by each linking population. Obviously in single server system servers that put in the effort and provide entertainment also have most players. Tiers are there for fair matchmaking, forcing equal player populations just makes great effort reach less people.
5. Bimonthly waste of time: Everyone knows matchups are completely one sided first 3 weeks of every relinking. That is 3 weeks out of 8 where single groups efforts don't matter and everything is decided by movement of players and what you were linked with. Such a waste of time
6. The above points get gradually worse and worse: With cheaper transfers and most popular main servers being full, the total transfers have been towards link servers. As they bleed players, biggest servers get full with less players and percentage of server mates in your matchup becomes less and less.

This was a long one, but server linkings have very complicated effects and I summarized them as well as I could. Note: As this is common misconception, I do not think we need more tiers, just single servers instead of double ones.

 

Objective Auras

Well, as many of you have come to know, I am big advocate of the fact that objective auras are a system that doesn't fit in any game  and has slowly dwiddled down our competitive scene and willing commanders to a handful. Since math is necessary for this section, I will simplify: 200 offensive stats and 200 defensive stats are in best case 18% more combat power, meaning you need to land 18% less skills to be equal to someone.  Now this isn't all, with changing sides and doubling, it can reach 36% or even 54% damage if you choose wrong location to fight in.

 When you are limited by cooldowns and cast times,  those numbers have massive impact in outcome of the battle.

 

Impacts on how game plays out are following:

1. Location decides the fight: Think of it this way, anytime you, ally or enemy survives or is overkilled with less than 10% health, 20% in a keep, it is a difference of a spot you're fighting in. If your support dies, you die too. So it isn't just 1 kill or death. This is easily observed by yourself so I won't go any further.
2. Server stacking: To overcome the disadvantage when taking objectives, you also need to be much stronger. So you go on a stacked server. Who wants to twiddle their thumbs on equally strong servers knowing you cannot take anything? Very few. Of course in return defending becomes too easy and you hold T3 home border and SM all day. Server stacking is mostly driven by this effect.
3. Building decent scene is impossible: When fighting near a friendly or enemy camp or tower with no siege or NPC, having who owns the most nearby objective swing damage differences by over 30%, is absolutely ridiculous. In almost all cases, either you, or your opposing server owns it. This obviously has killed GvG and dueling scene almost fully, since their fun is having rivalries and pecking order
4. Good fights are impossible to get and very rare: Lets say you are slightly stronger when defending, so you should be able to improve the fights by finetuning by attacking something easy instead. You lose all the defender advantages, closer respawn, some players and in addition to for your group has to start dealing 36% more damage?? How is this in the game?? Where is the finetuning where you make it slightly easier for opponents? Aren't camps supposed to be very small difference, towers medium difference and keeps large? How are we in spectrum of large, mega and giant difference?
5. It punishes new players and commanders: Yep, they have no clue. Even most experienced players do not think about it. They just run to capture sm or t3 keep and wonder how they lost so easy despite there being no siege involved. It just gives P2W game feels where enemy bought better gear. New players and commanders cannot thrive in this system, they have so much else to learn.
6. Bad builds and defending mentality thriving: Anything feels strong when defending objectives. You don't need to organise, or bring a good build, you just outnumber enemies and think you're amazing. Then you become useless the moment you step in enemy claim buff or open field. Your build obviously isn't at fault since it is decent somewhere, so it must be your server being bad outside defending. So you become a defender only. This mentality has spread to groups as well, as no one wants to play with only 25 players willing to go outside garrison/sm on queued home border or eb.
7.  Active defenses are a joke now: Siege vs siege damage reduced, gate/wall hitpoints reduced, shield gens blocking all siege, 50 supply unstoppable boon golems rushing straight to lord room. Yep, defending is all stats and players now. Before you could buy time, now the impact a few players can have is minimal. The gameplay in keeps is simply just attackers trying to rush lord down before there are too many defenders. If it is a stacked organised groups with several times more experienced players and better builds, they might get some bags out of it, but never a decent fight.

 

Objective auras have no place in any game, PvE or even different genre. Taking away and gaining large amount of stats by taking 1 step in one direction is just unfun design. It becomes even worse in WvW because then logical choice is just to defend, but you also need someone to attack. System that requires one side to be dumb and suicidal is pretty dumb.

 

 

So I already covered the 2 worst systems in WvW that has massive negative impact on everyone, now the next ones are still very impactful but they won't affect every player and I will try to be very brief about them:

 

Shield generators:

Very simply put, these things block all defensive, and most offensive siege. This means as long as they exist, there can be no siege balance. Just build more shield generators if they counter one by disabling. They need to be much more fragile and bubble skill needs so adjustments, such as only happening around the shield generator so there can truly only be 1 bubble in 1 spot.

 

2 Different borderlands:

Desert map as a standalone wouldn't be a problematic map, but it has 2 problems: It takes 1 space of a popular map and has massively different impact on scoring. I cannot say how much impact desert map ownership has on outcome of average matchup, but I have witnessed whole servers that refuse to play on it for a full week, so it can make matchup complete snoozefiesta since 1 server has no home border and there is no danger of losing or hope of winning.

 

Now having 3 of the same borderlands is correct for scoring, and choosing alpine is correct because publicly available data shows it has average of 150% popularity of desert on 1 map. Obviously since alpine players are split in 2, we can expect at least twice as much popularity from alpine maps.

 

Upgrade times

With addition of Heart of Thorns expansion, they tried to oversimplify the upgrade system. The maps weren't designed around keeps, towers and castles all requiring same amount of dolyaks to upgrade, so following changes need to be made:

1. Keeps should require 50% more dolyaks to upgrade, and castles 100% more dolyaks
2. Packed dolyaks should carry 3 times (up from 2) as much supply, but only count as 1 (Down from 2) for upgrade. This is a problematic tactic and just superior speedy dolly as it is.

This will change the game so that when you log in, there will most likely be at least 1 objective that you can attack with available numbers and have a decent fight in. Everything being fully upgraded or wooden, just doesn't provide us much choice.

 

Gliding in combat

Gliding shouldn't be available in combat. It is problematic during fights since one sides players have access to indemand superspeed as long as there is an incline, anticlimactic before fights since people can just glide away and unfun after them since falling damage kills are skillful and hilarious. For objective balance it is also problematic since gliding combined with all the objective portals and walls, makes it waste of time to chase a defender or have good small fights on the walls.

 

Remaining siege and objective balance

I already touched on this at Objective aura section how we have transitioned from having active defenses, to passive ones, up to a point where defending and attacking are decided by just numbers and stats, instead of meaningful decisionmaking. Following things need to be done:

1. Objective aura reworked into non combat stats (massive passive defending nerf). Look at Objective aura section for more info
2. Siege damage to siege increased by 50% (they accidentally halved siege damage to siege in patch they made conditions and crits work against siege). (Defending and siege clearing buff)
3. Walls and gates 25% stronger so defenders have more time (wall/gate hp were reduced after introducing objective aura) to gather up and react. Defender buff.
4. Upgrade times of keeps and castles increased. See Upgrade times section. Defending nerf.
5. Lord hitpoints should only scale off enemy players, not defenders. Anomaly, obviously  25 attackers aren't intended to have to kill 60 person scaled lord when facing 35 defenders at same time. Currently it just promotes blob sizes that go to maximum lord scaling by themselves.
6. Gliding removed in combat. Defending nerf. See Gliding in combat section
7. Shield gens reworked. Attacker nerf. See Shield Generators section.
8. Siege golems should be unaffected by boons, guild golems should cost 80 supply instead of 50. Very unhealthy strategy for the game and shouldn't be so much more potent than all others. Attacker nerf.

 

Overall it will be reduction in defenders power inside, but they will have more time to gather numbers for a fair fight. Do note that you will waste less time in dead game and take more objectives, since people are more willing to organise and attack.

 

 

Smaller groups and single players

Most of their activity has been taken away. Watchtowers and 90% dolyak escort buff are problematic for how little smaller groups can do now. Upgrade times are also several times faster, so they have less reasonable things to attempt to take when they log in. And since less attempters, they also have less to fight. Sentries also punish inexperienced or inattentive players and often just leads small groups getting grouped down by larger groups.

 

 

 

Afterwords: I think I gathered most of the obvious issues with WvW in 2023. I do want you to keep in mind that changes that affect everyone are net neutral so its just about what will bring about good moments and joy between you launching and closing the game. So try to not think from self-centric point of view but take into account your enemies also. For example losing more towers means more willing attackers leading to more action for all sides.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Fruit.7624]

I would also like to add that the mastery system needs to either get deleted completely and just apply all those bonuses passively, or at the very least completely reworked. 

 

The mastery system only hurts new players and no veteran player cares about it at all. It becomes useless after rank 1500 or whatever when you max it out and can't spend your points on anything.

 

Put yourself in a new players shoes , you do pve you enjoy gw2 gliding autoloot and mounts , you enter wvw - oooops can't do that anymore, it's locked and you need to grind levels to get that basic functionality that you've been used to back.

Or you use a catapult or ram thinking you are helping your team when in fact you are making things worse by not having the defense shield or iron will, or just straight up doing low dmg. I've seen people flame noobs for this so many times...

 

ANET unintentionally almost fixed this issue with the first iteration of the reward changes with the giga xp rewards but then decided to nerf it ... Goes to show how much ANET are aware of the actual troubles new players face in WvW or how to increase player retention.

 

Nobody who is a veteran and a WvW player cares about xp or levels. They are meaningless. There are diamond legends that are absolute potato's who farmed their xp in karma trains in EoTM and there are core thief squires who are someone's alt account who will wreck you in 5 seconds.

 

I understand that some people want some sort of progression but this can be achieved with a rework of the current system that doesn't actively make the experience worse for new players. Maybe something involving gyzmo-esque novelty items that are achievable only via WvW. Maybe finally giving WvW leggy armor a sick look.  Solutions can be vary greatly. 

Also while we're at it , restrict low levels from entering WvW. Imagine entering EBG as a level 31 pleb and get instantly oneshot by everything - not a pleasant experience at all.

 

I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who has helped numerous noobs with WvW : explaining the game mode, buying them gear runes sigil, inviting them to the WSR guild and discord, helping with warclaw, pointing them towards builds, explaining the wvw culture, helping them in fights... I could go on. 80% of those ppl I never see again after one week of interest. The rest leave afterwards in the span of a month. 

 

[devastoscz.9851]

I agree on your points on new accounts. I think gliding, mounting, autoloot masteries should all be a given in WvW. You already paid your dues for this in PVE (most likely) and even if you haven't, they put you on a significant competitive disadvantage "just for being new". The rest of the upgrades, sure, let them need rank for it, its honestly not significant enough and allows people some sort of "account progression".

As for not letting low levels in to WvW... I dont know if I would outright restrict them. I see very few of them, and tbh, I think a new player should be allowed the experience of "checking it out" before they're 80. They'll get run over or ganked for sure, but I reckon most of them will understand that they need to level up/gear up before they can be minimally effective in this zone. Not any different from what happens if they enter a PVE zone that is above their level.

 

[Sleepwalker.1398]

OP, If Objective Auras is such a problem for you, then why don't you and a couple of your friends go take it for your server.

I mean the enemy server sent 3-4 or more to capture, why don't your guys go take it back? Or is it the zerg / boon ball mentality that you to afraid to do a 1v1 if someone does come to stop you?

[Riba.3271]

42 minutes ago, Sleepwalker.1398 said:

OP, If Objective Auras is such a problem for you, then why don't you and a couple of your friends go take it for your server.

I mean the enemy server sent 3-4 or more to capture, why don't your guys go take it back? Or is it the zerg / boon ball mentality that you to afraid to do a 1v1 if someone does come to stop you?

Of course one would attempt to take something back if it is reasonable or could lead to fun. I am not sure where to start to make you understand since you didn't bring up any reason why these faulty systems are good. 

You are saying 1v1s against same person would feel the same after nearby objective flips and one side wins landing 32% less skills? You comment is noted.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Chips.7968]

Removing auras isn't going to stop server stacking, why would it? 

You're effectively saying server stacking is *caused* by objective auras, and I'm sure that's not what you mean either.

Lastly, objective auras doesn't result in defend only. If it did, how do we manage to have servers flipping towers, camps, keeps and SM. Repeatedly. They're being flipped despite auras and not due to "overwhelming numbers" - well, compared to the guards and lord maybe. 

Things wrong with WvW include:- bugs (terrain bugs, exploits etc) unaddressed for years, downed state, celestial stats (or at least boon duration/condition duration inclusion without overall reduction in the stats as normal stats -- so example is weapon stats totals = 609 on 3 stat, 654 on 4 stat, 1072 on celestial. There's more, but, for starters 😄

Edited March 9, 2023 by Chips.7968

[Sleepwalker.1398]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Of course one would attempt to take something back if it is reasonable or could lead to fun. I am not sure where to start to make you understand since you didn't bring up any reason why these faulty systems are good. 

You are saying 1v1s against same person would feel the same after nearby objective flips and one side wins landing 32% less skills? You comment is noted.

Just cause you can't be bothered to get the aura, so the enemy has massive advantage but still melts to boonballs. OMG Anet this is not fair, if Riba can't have it, then no one else should have it and should be removed.

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, Sleepwalker.1398 said:

ust cause you can't be bothered to get the aura, so the enemy has massive advantage but still melts to boonballs. OMG Anet this is not fair, if Riba can't have it, then no one else should have it and should be removed.

Being able to get it if you bring much stronger group doesn't equate it being balanced or healthy for the game. It also isn't exactly fun getting or playing with it either. What we need is more frequent action in the game translating to more fun. Look further into my opening message to see why.

I get it, you're trying to troll me due to having misconceptions about my motives and personality. I don't blame you, you most likely don't have much else to do due to objective auras and very few people willing to attack, duel or organise anything. I just love balanced WvW, lets make it best place possible together.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, Chips.7968 said:

 

You're effectively saying server stacking is *caused* by objective auras, and I'm sure that's not what you mean either.

 

Lastly, objective auras doesn't result in defend only. If it did, how do we manage to have servers flipping towers, camps, keeps and SM. Repeatedly. They're being flipped despite auras and not due to "overwhelming numbers" - well, compared to the guards and lord maybe. 

Extreme levels of server stacking is caused by the necessity of being much better than enemy to go on the offensive. Yes, some people will always travel to winning side, but we have reached to the point where people who chose to have better fights over winning, have also quit the game or gone to that side since they cannot just wait for enemy to be willing to organise as that would mean gaming would dictate when you game, rather than you making the decision. You do not need organisation to defend, so succesful attacking can only be killing much less skilled or organised players.

 

It is true auras do not result in defending only, but mapstates have much more T3 objectives and there are many less groups willing to take an attempt at the game. And as there are very few attackers, defenders also become unattentive. And unattentiveness doesn't mean that defending isn't too strong, it just means you were too slow to react or used barely any of the available tools to defend, communicate or buy time. "Close fights" sometimes happen within objectives, it doesn't mean it was between equal groups or translate well into further fights at other places.

 

What this means in practice is that 2nd attempt to attack same place never succeeds as the unattentiveness is removed by the first one: Defenders will finally scout, use siege and bring decent numbers. And that defender can never bring the following fight at enemy objective after defending due to losing all the defender advantages and stats. Now you can easily see that these 2 different outcomes after the first attack has occured leads into there being no more good fights and even that one will be scuffed due to combat stat bonuses.

 

So existance of objective auras translates terribly into keeping fun up, and it is much better for the stats to be removed and in return give defenders more time to bring a decent group by increasing how long objectives can hold before breached. Multiple attempt sieges need to be returned to the game so fun isn't completely reliant on enemy gathering equally strong group and coming out to fight.

 

Bolded parts summarize the response

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Knighthonor.4061]

Hidden Tags ruin WvW. If a casual logs into WvW and Don't see a tag or group in chat, why would they stay? Leading to more population issues 

 

 

[Nidome.1365]

The only real problem with WvW is the one we've had for several years, population imbalance.
The population imbalance was caused by cheap transfers and players who constantly transfer looking for the server with "greener grass".
What really needs to happen is that the serial transfer players need to be punished for creating the population imbalances and transfer costs need to be modified to discourage serial transfers - perhaps by multiplying costs by the number of transfers previously made by that account.

Where two servers are paired make the transfer cost based upon the population of the larger of the pair to discourage bandwaggoning.

This should settle down the transfers, which means you can them split the servers back into their old tiers. If it does work you can scrap alliances because if we are honest alliances will lead to matchup manipulation by the leaders of a few large guilds which will ultimately destroy the game mode.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Nidome.1365 said:

The only real problem with WvW is the one we've had for several years, population imbalance.

This.

Trying to come up with complicated and other reasons to a very simplistic core issue is just confusing the issue.

This has become once again evident with the current influx of players, thanks to overcompensation of rewards, which has again temporarily painted over the issues which are severe imbalanced sides.

Turns out, with more even numbers WvW can be real good fun in almost any tier. Server stacking directly counter acts this state and the resulting damage it causes both short term as well as long term is a core issue which needs addressing.

Not sure what the obsession with objective auras is. There is very seldom two equal enough skilled blobs to even have this be the deciding factor. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[MarzAttakz.9608]

RIBA how would you feel if they removed objective auras, reworked the outnumbered buff to then apply the former keep buff across the map instead?

[TheGrimm.5624]

Had a three way fight in ABL Garri , lasting somewhere around 95+ minutes tonight.  Supplies ran out fast, first 20 some mins which I think was the intent, repairs slowed the 3 way, which I think is the intent, camps became a higher relevant factor to hold, again I think was the intent, PoTK buff aided but did not decide the fight. If anything ABLs proximity from spawn to Garri was biggest factor so should we redesign ABL since its too much of a boost to the home team?

We need to plan for different maps. ABL was stale after year one and balancing around it is not a good idea since it has too many of it own flaws and over supports home team advantage. We need all maps to be three sided maps and remove the idea of home maps favoring a side, the reason EBG offers the most action is due to it has the best odds of equal footing and thereby more fights. 

[Jitters.9401]

Waaaaayyy too much to read. 

 

I originally left in 2015. 

Came back 2019.

Almost all I do is wvw (aside from trying to get the invisible shoes to sell).

 

I would like a new map. 

I only like the desert map when I am Red. 

 

I work 10hr nights amd sometimes at work 6/7 days a week.

I play when I can (in part determined by my significant other) .

 

Some days it is really good. Some days it is lack luster. That's the same as life. Just roll with it as nothing is perfect.

 

There are only 3 real issues I have with WvW. 

(1) The fact that super OP classes are allowed to exist for such long periods of time (eles / willbenders). Minimal siill needed for maximum results. 

I come across so many ele's that are running permanent protection.  How is that fair? I know this because sometimes I run a build that steals boons and when I luck out and steal protection (these ele's have like 6 boons at all times) the duration I steal is almost always over 20 seconds and the ele has it reapplied on themselves almost immediately. 

 

As well, neither willbenders nor ele's need to target anything in close range. All they do is cleave. So many of us other classes to not have that luxury and have to target and be skilled. 

 

(2) Anet saying they want us to be able to play anything while they make changes that take away options and force us to play far less variety then they pretend we have.

 

(3) The hacks.

Some are so evident. On my thief, invisible via shadow refuge... I went up behind an enemy, threw scorpion wire point blank range... he dodged. I did that multiple times with that same thief and no matter how I varied the time duration to when I threw scorpion wire (while invisible) from point blank range, they dodged.  

 

Then yesterday i was fighting a ranger. I used my "Psychic Force" knockback,  which if it hit would set me up perfectly for my "F1 Bladesong Attack. But, if the person was evading my knockback then I was still being set up perfectly for my F1 Bladesong attack.

They evaded the knockback and while they were mid roll (forward direction) I hit F1. Their forward dodged animation broke, they spun around to face the opposite way, and did another dodge roll and evaded. 

 

That is highly suspect. Instead of a much easier and efficient double dodge roll forward, the animation broke halfway through to where the toon instantly faced the opposite direction and dodge rolled to evade my next attack.

Highly suspect. I seen something like this before and when I talked to the person they admitted to cheating.  

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Jitters.9401

[Riba.3271]

6 hours ago, MarzAttakz.9608 said:

RIBA how would you feel if they removed objective auras, reworked the outnumbered buff to then apply the former keep buff across the map instead?

That would still affect fight outcome as not all  on map is on the same spot. All it would do promote avoiding having new people with your group and everyone on map being on same spot since splitting up on same map would mean combat disadvantage.

 

It isn't necessarily bad that largely outnumbering side is able to take what they want as long as they're strategic about it and take their time. Both factors which would increase along with breachtime. Defenders aren't entitled to being able to save everything, as there will be time they will be attackers as well. If you balance the game around 20v40, it ruins 40v40. If you're worried about not having enough people to defend then use some communication channel such as guild chat/discord, buy some time and try to motivate people to show up.

 

So no, passive stats aren't ever correct way to balance defending.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

6 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Had a three way fight in ABL Garri , lasting somewhere around 95+ minutes tonight.  Supplies ran out fast, first 20 some mins which I think was the intent, repairs slowed the 3 way, which I think is the intent, camps became a higher relevant factor to hold, again I think was the intent, PoTK buff aided but did not decide the fight. If anything ABLs proximity from spawn to Garri was biggest factor so should we redesign ABL since its too much of a boost to the home team?

What you're describing is situation where defenders couldn't deal with attackers for 2 hours when they had following:

1. close respawn so multiple lives
2. Ability to keep rebuilding siege
3. Not having to split damage on the lord
4. choice of time to engage
5. nearby entrances to stay alive when they would otherwise die
6. Tactivators

and in addition to this they would have won the fight even if they landed 30% less skills on the enemies due to aura stats.

 

Long attempts doesn't equate good balance. It just sounds like attackers were much better players and organised, up to a point where defenders could barely scratch their numbers and pick off the weaklings. Do note that this form of balance, would mean that good fight in garrison cannot occur between 2 groups of similar or close to similar strength, one of them needs to be vastly stronger and be the attacker.

 

Can you really claim that your "defending group", would have survived more than 30 seconds  if you went to take on the attackers on the open field or hit their tower? I think your experiences and memories are able to tell you that you wouldn't be able to do anything if you stepped outside your garrison.

It is important to not take current WvW as granted, and realise that surroundings would adapt with any potential changes: playerbase would be more equal skillwise since too strong would mean being bored as you could take enemy garrisons with snap of fingers, and being too weak would mean you would have to learn and organise better.

Also your servers group, that was decent at defending against that particular attacker group this time, won't become miraculously in next 1 or 2 or 3 months able to attack against the same group since it would mean enemy has to land 50% less skills to down your players and win. So your gameplay against that same group, that probably prefers the same timezone, will always be the same: you defending and them attacking. It is easily seen how fun having conditions of same attacker showing up willingfully to attack same objectives and finding it fun to face much worse players, is kind very unreliable.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

10 hours ago, Knighthonor.4061 said:

Hidden Tags ruin WvW. If a casual logs into WvW and Don't see a tag or group in chat, why would they stay? Leading to more population issues 

Well I was of similar thought, but hidden tags are existance that fits in linking system where large group of strangers keep rotating to be your allies.

If double server system was removed and there were stable player population, groups would be able to run visible tags more willingly since they could always train people to not ruin stealth, have publicly known tag colour conduct so people know it is a closed raid and deal verbally with any groups that have problem with them on the server.

Yes, hidden tags is a system that ruins WvW, but necessary for another system that ruins WvW: Double servers. Else you're going to have to train and educate someone elses kids every 2 months. And if your group is already at level of playing adult basketball, having big patch of kids play amongst you is gonna be pretty annoying. You could educate maybe a few at a time, but having 40-60% of the team being new patch of kids every 2 months is just too much, so people run hidden tags.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Mabi black.1824]

12 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Being able to get it if you bring much stronger group doesn't equate it being balanced or healthy for the game. It also isn't exactly fun getting or playing with it either. What we need is more frequent action in the game translating to more fun.

You can only agree with what you wrote here. I guess the assumption of having a statistical advantage in relation to a structure is that at that moment the structure is yours. If someone shows up to take it/steal it, they should take care to plan and organize their attack well.

I find that your request perhaps should be better formulated. Granting advantage statistics to defend a castle at that precise moment because it is yours, should perhaps be related to the number of players on that map. So if your enemy has twice as many numbers as you then it is correct to get an advantage. If your enemy has the same number of players as you then that advantage should be greatly reduced. If the enemy doesn't have players like your team then that statistical advantage should be removed.

[Riba.3271]

1 minute ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You can only agree with what you wrote here. I guess the assumption of having a statistical advantage in relation to a structure is that at that moment the structure is yours. If someone shows up to take it/steal it, they should take care to plan and organize their attack well.

I find that your request perhaps should be better formulated. Granting advantage statistics to defend a castle at that precise moment because it is yours, should perhaps be related to the number of players on that map. So if your enemy has twice as many numbers as you then it is correct to get an advantage. If your enemy has the same number of players as you then that advantage should be greatly reduced. If the enemy doesn't have players like your team then that statistical advantage should be removed.

Fights where one side has extra stats are unfun and confusing regardless of numbers difference. Yes, it would more reasonable to have the stats scale off player difference, but that would mean it would also have to buff the attackers if they attack with lesser numbers for equality, and double down on the fact that groups are never allowed to split up. 

 

For example lets say there were 20 defenders and 40 attackers, those 40 attackers splitting in 2 to attack 2 different gates, wouldn't be a viable strategy anymore as one of them would get easily demolished by the overly statted defenders. Same applies to single people, they would have less fun 1v1ing people anymore.

 

 

So no, I do not agree that stats varying off player numbers is a viable solution either. The defenders should just learn to build necessary channels (guild chat, community guild chat, teamchat, discord) to match the numbers., If they cannot, then they'll just do their best to minimize the damage and slow the enemies. They can start using creative strategies like stealthing and closing gate so enemy is cut in half, or organising trebutchet chokes where large group of enemies get oneshot before they react. There are ways to deal with larger groups even without stats, ways that aren't available to attacker.

 

What is necessary to understand is that WvW doesn't need to be just mindlessly bashing your heads together with stats, strategies also exist, and defenders have much more of them available.

[Riba.3271]

36 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You can only agree with what you wrote here. I guess the assumption of having a statistical advantage in relation to a structure is that at that moment the structure is yours. If someone shows up to take it/steal it, they should take care to plan and organize their attack well.

I find that your request perhaps should be better formulated. Granting advantage statistics to defend a castle at that precise moment because it is yours, should perhaps be related to the number of players on that map. So if your enemy has twice as many numbers as you then it is correct to get an advantage. If your enemy has the same number of players as you then that advantage should be greatly reduced. If the enemy doesn't have players like your team then that statistical advantage should be removed.

Fights where one side has extra stats are unfun and confusing regardless of numbers difference. Yes, it would more reasonable to have the stats scale off player difference, but that would mean it would also have to buff the attackers if they attack with lesser numbers for equality, and double down on the fact that groups are never allowed to split up. 

 

For example lets say there were 20 defenders and 40 attackers, those 40 attackers splitting in 2 to attack 2 different gates, wouldn't be a viable strategy anymore as one of them would get easily demolished by the overly statted defenders. Same applies to single people, they would have less fun 1v1ing people anymore.

 

This setup would also create a world where there might be such a bad player that they would contribute less than the stats they take away by joining, very depressing design that might cause excluding some players.

 

So no, I do not agree that stats varying off player numbers is a viable solution either. The defenders should just learn to build necessary channels (guild chat, community guild chat, teamchat, discord) to match the numbers., If they cannot, then they'll just do their best to minimize the damage and slow the enemies. They can even start using creative strategies like stealthing and closing gate so enemy is cut in half, or organising trebutchet chokes where large group of enemies get oneshot before they react. There are ways to deal with larger groups even without stats, ways that aren't available to attacker. If your strategy fails, you can always move to the next objective.

 

What is necessary to understand is that WvW doesn't need to be just mindlessly bashing your heads together with stats, strategies also exist, and defenders have much more of them available. If they react fast, they will even have more lives. Losing objectives isn't necessarily bad, if larger group is allowed to defend easily, then larger group should also be able to take things relatively easy. Theres no reason to shoehorn non-strategy gameplay with less players able to compete with more players in the game.

 

Attacking should be incentivised as much as defending, since one cannot exist without other. The more and more stats defenders have, the less incentivised are most people to get better or organise, since they can already beat them by being much worse. Also it isn't like good defending, translates into good attacking with massive stat swings between both sides, so staying worse isn't a bad life: you're already locked in to 1 activity depending on your server and opponents the moment you log in. It is very unlikely that there are both worse and better enemy groups online so you can implement both and have fair fights, and even less guarantee that the group that reacts is the particular group you're looking for.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Mabi black.1824]

5 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

For example lets say there were 20 defenders and 40 attackers, those 40 attackers splitting in 2 to attack 2 different gates, wouldn't be a viable strategy anymore as one of them would get easily demolished by the overly statted defenders. Same applies to single people, they would have less fun 1v1ing people anymore.

We have to be honest with each other Riba. If you ask me to review the advantages that the structures grant then I will answer yes. If you ask me to delete them completely regardless then I would say no. Let's take a good look at your example. 20 vs 40 the enemy divides into two groups. So 20vs20 in the bay with a statistical disadvantage( apparently illogical ) while the other 20 take the hills. A few minutes later you will inevitably have 20vs40 because they have already taken everything else.

The statistical advantage now of those 20 players is suddenly logical. Give those poor 20 players an advantage against a full team. When I say to relate the advantages to the number of players on the map, I mean all the players. Dividing into 2 or 3 groups is still their choice. while the team in inferiority of choices has very few.

If we look at those two 1vs1 players they will not be affected in their clashes/duels. Just get away from the facilities as they already do.

At the moment we have statistical advantage regardless. If we link it to the number of players it is clear that it influences both the attack and the defense. At least that is my intention. If there are 20 attacking 40 I would like the advantages (small advantages of statistics) to go to those 20 daring players.

I also think it's an important change for our WWW and has good potential to stimulate players to put content into the mode.

[subversiontwo.7501]

I'll throw my hat in the ring too, with the same old remarks:

On 3/8/2023 at 1:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Server linking system

Server timezones are unstable

Long-term progression and communication

Average quality of content is worse

Everything is decided by movement of players and what you were linked with

The above points get gradually worse and worse

You say that the Alliance system will not make these things better but then you list 5 points, where at least 4 are directly and demonstrably improved by the Alliance system. The only question mark is time zones which Alliancess does not directly impact (and which are best adressed through scoring algorithms and objective mechanics) but even that can see some limited positive impact from better playerbase mobility. All the other points are directly impacted by the system. Your Alliance is your long-term progression and communication structure. The quality of content is largely attached to the long-term progression: Having something to build towards, giving you a reason to build. The Alliance system directly affects the movement of players by enabling Alliances and restricting paid transfers. It snaps the system out of its spiral of players giving up when they can't motivate paying for transfers. So, to all those points brought up, well, the Alliance system is a perfectly fair answer.

On 3/8/2023 at 1:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Objective Auras

This is one of the few points I hands down agree with you on. The stat-auras do more to stifle content than to encourage it. There was another recent thread about the WXP/player upgrade system. They both have in common that upgrades leading to player advantages are best handled on the PPT and convenience side of things: not on the stat- or PPK side of things. A good example would be that the ability to do more damage with siege is a decent upgrade but taking less damage from siege is a rather poor one: as the latter separates less experienced players from more experienced players in the same situation. Similarily, ArenaNet could sink lots of points into upgrading the supply-carriage perk because a very experienced player being able to place a ram on their own without a double-back is not a huge balance concern in the greater picture. Things like that are already balanced in multiple ways from supplies available to still needing to man and defend your siege. Enabling smaller groups to make attempts at smaller scale is not balance- or content concerns. Rather the other way around: More attempts from smaller groups would be welcome as it encourages more content. There are a ton of things ArenaNet could improve on both the guild- and player-upgrade side with these concerns in mind. Smaller, incremental, deeper siege and supply things rather than player stats etc. A lvl 30 guild having 3% more HP on claimed walls than a lvl 27 guild is not the end of the world, etc. There are plenty of ways to design- and balance things like that.

On 3/8/2023 at 1:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

 Different borderlands

ArenaNet has over the past 10 years amply demonstrated that they lack the "development bandwidth" to effectively maintain multiple maps and borderlands. It would be in everyone's interest to go down to a one-maptype model that they can effectively maintain and develop upon.

On 3/8/2023 at 1:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Upgrade times

I'm not too fussed about this. It is a balance issue. If a developer can be trusted, you can trust them to manage such things.

On 3/8/2023 at 1:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Gliding in combat

I'm not too fussed about this either. However, I think the suggestion put forward sounds fair enough.

On 3/8/2023 at 1:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Smaller groups and single players

 

Most of their activity has been taken away. Watchtowers and 90% dolyak escort buff are problematic for how little smaller groups can do now /.../ and often just leads small groups getting grouped down by larger groups.

I believe this entire point is based on a flawed premised that smaller groups are relegated to only play smaller objectives. That is untrue. Every single objective in WvW has at some point been solo captured. Smaller groups getting zerged down has much less to do with effective intel and far more to do with the amount- and balance of CC. I'll expand a bit more on that because it has hit some sort of farcical state where the balance is handled by exceptional mechanics (cleanses being unreliable, and replaced by traits that adds immunities and guarantees; this should be a prioritised balance area going forward). Things like watchtowers are part of that, given how they are an exceptional mechanic mostly there to deal with the exceptional balance of stealth. In their role to provide intel on the map, they do what they are meant to do sufficiently. That isn't a problem.

Edited March 9, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Cyninja.2954]

23 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Fights where one side has extra stats are unfun and confusing regardless of numbers difference. Yes, it would more reasonable to have the stats scale off player difference, but that would mean it would also have to buff the attackers if they attack with lesser numbers for equality, and double down on the fact that groups are never allowed to split up. 

For example lets say there were 20 defenders and 40 attackers, those 40 attackers splitting in 2 to attack 2 different gates, wouldn't be a viable strategy anymore as one of them would get easily demolished by the overly statted defenders. Same applies to single people, they would have less fun 1v1ing people anymore.

This setup would also create a world where there might be such a bad player that they would contribute less than the stats they take away by joining, very depressing design that might cause excluding some players.

So no, I do not agree that stats varying off player numbers is a viable solution either. The defenders should just learn to build necessary channels (guild chat, community guild chat, teamchat, discord) to match the numbers., If they cannot, then they'll just do their best to minimize the damage and slow the enemies. They can even start using creative strategies like stealthing and closing gate so enemy is cut in half, or organising trebutchet chokes where large group of enemies get oneshot before they react. There are ways to deal with larger groups even without stats, ways that aren't available to attacker. If your strategy fails, you can always move to the next objective.

What is necessary to understand is that WvW doesn't need to be just mindlessly bashing your heads together with stats, strategies also exist, and defenders have much more of them available. If they react fast, they will even have more lives. Losing objectives isn't necessarily bad, if larger group is allowed to defend easily, then larger group should also be able to take things relatively easy. Theres no reason to shoehorn non-strategy gameplay with less players able to compete with more players in the game.

Attacking should be incentivised as much as defending, since one cannot exist without other. The more and more stats defenders have, the less incentivised are most people to get better or organise, since they can already beat them by being much worse. Also it isn't like good defending, translates into good attacking with massive stat swings between both activity, so staying worse isn't a bad life: you're already locked in to 1 activity depending on your server and opponents the moment you log in.

What you are leaving out here is:

the attacker already has the innate advantage of momentum and initiation. As defender, you are reacting, which in todays WvW already puts you at a disadvantage in many scenarios.

Attacking is incentivized: it's necessary to flip the objective and thus result in favorable map presence for your side. Granted, in todays system where winning or losing doesn't mean much the incentive might not be high, but it is there.

Now are bonus stats necessary for defenders? No. I don't see them as the primary problem as you do, but they could be removed. In which case there would have to be a reevaluation of attacking and defending though. If we are talking exactly equal sides for fights, this means changing available means for defenders to react and prepare BEFORE attackers arrive as well as the ability to swap between objectives faster.

In short: I personally have no problem with defenders being advantaged at equal numbers because I know that as attacker I am already at an advantageous position to pick where I want to act.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

9 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

We have to be honest with each other Riba. If you ask me to review the advantages that the structures grant then I will answer yes. If you ask me to delete them completely regardless then I would say no. Let's take a good look at your example. 20 vs 40 the enemy divides into two groups. So 20vs20 in the bay with a statistical disadvantage( apparently illogical ) while the other 20 take the hills. A few minutes later you will inevitably have 20vs40 because they have already taken everything else.

I am not asking objectives to not provide defender advantages. Respawn availability, tactivators, lord, siege, supply, time of engage, will still be on the side of the defender. Lets say you react to attackers when they're at the outer wall, so you engage at them there with siege, then you have another chance at inner gate even if you fail, and at least 2 more attempts after that (EWP, rerun). Are you saying that if the attacker overcomes siege, tactivators and kills the defender 4+ times, they do not deserve to take the objective? They still need to be much better players and overcome ton of stats? I think your perception of who deserves to have the objective, is very very skewed towards the defender.

If you read my opening post, in return defenders would have stronger walls and gates, in addition to more siege vs siege damage to hold off attackers. Most cheesy attacker strategies like stacking boon golems and shield generators, would be massively nerfed. So defenders would have much more time to gather numbers and attempt to kill the enemy. If that wouldn't be enough, frankly I think attackers deserve the objective.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271